Schwinger effect in 4D de Sitter space and constraints on magnetogenesis in the early universe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate pair creation by an electric field in four-dimensional de Sitter space. The expectation value of the induced current is computed, using the method of adiabatic regularization. Under strong electric fields the behavior of the current is similar to that in flat space, while under weak electric fields the current becomes inversely proportional to the mass squared of the charged field. Thus we find that the de Sitter space obtains a large conductivity under weak electric fields in the presence of a charged field with a tiny mass. We then apply the results to constrain electromagnetic fields in the early universe. In particular, we study cosmological scenarios for generating large-scale magnetic fields during the inflationary era. Electric fields generated along with the magnetic fields can induce sufficiently large conductivity to terminate the phase of magnetogenesis. For inflationary magnetogenesis models with a modified Maxwell kinetic term, the generated magnetic fields cannot exceed 10−30 G on Mpc scales in the present epoch, when a charged field carrying an elementary charge with mass of order the Hubble scale or smaller exists in the Lagrangian. Similar constraints from the Schwinger effect apply for other magnetogenesis mechanisms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".